Senior advocate Minola Sebayang, who is also the chairman of the Indonesian Association of Young Advocates (AAMSI), filed a judicial review petition at the Constitutional Court—questioning the process of examining a pre-trial lawsuit—but the petition was rejected by the Assembly of Justices on October 30, 2018. This judicial review petition reminded us of graft case involving Dana Pensiun Pertamina involving Edward Soeryadjaya.

Minola Sebayang et al filed a petition No. 66/PUU-XVI/2018 to question the provisions in Law No. 8/1981 concerning Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP). The applicants argued that the provisions in Art. 82 paragraph (1) letter “c” and letter “d” of said Law caused legal uncertainty. The absence of a time limit to start pre-trial hearing caused a long examination process and this loophole is often exploited by those who would wish to delay the start of a pre-trial hearing. We know that in 2016 (with Decision No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015), the Constitutional Court ruled that a pre-trial case will be void if the trial on the main case has already started in a district court.

On October 30, 2018, the Assembly of Justices refused the petition. Justice Suhartoyo stated that the nature of a pre-trial lawsuit is only to question the formal validity of the investigation or prosecution process, and if the norm is declared unconstitutional, or is given the condition that the examination of the main case can only begin after there is a decision on the pre-trial lawsuit, this new condition will trigger legal uncertainty that is not in accordance with Decision No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015.

On the argument that there is a legal loophole that can be utilized by certain parties, the Assembly believes that this is a matter of implementation, which is indeed difficult to avoid and all depends on the spirit and integrity of law enforcement. But by looking at the provisions in the Decision No. 102/PUU-XIII/2015, there should be no more reason for judges to stop a pre-trial hearing midway just because the examination of the main case in the district court has begun. And vice versa, the Assembly said the Panel of Judges examining the main case in the district court should not carry out the first hearing if it is indeed known that a pre-trial hearing is ongoing.

This decision reminded us of the Dana Pensiun Pertamina graft case involving Edward Soeryadjaya. Edward’s trial continued even though Edward won the pre-trial lawsuit he submitted to the South Jakarta District Court (link: http://yosefardi.com/2018/08/06/revisiting-edward-soeryadjayas-graft-case/). This trial is still ongoing today and have to be postponed several times because of Edward’s poor health condition. His health condition was also the reason Edward never attended the trial in a case of land dispute in Dago where he was also named a suspect (link: http://yosefardi.com/2018/04/17/on-the-dago-land-dispute-and-the-nationalization-of-dutch-owned-companies/).

But in the midst of the many problems Edward currently experienced, Edward also had to face a lawsuit filed by his second wife. As we previously reported (link: http://yosefardi.com/2018/10/01/fransiska-susilo-v-the-soeryadjayas/), Fransiska Susilo appeared in front of the public to speak on behalf of the late Happy Soeryadjaya, Edward’s first wife. Fransiska then uncovered the case concerning PT Japirex and the last time we reported on the case was in January 2018 (link: http://yosefardi.com/2018/01/19/sandi-uno-japirex-case/). At the time, all eyes were focused on how the case would affect Sandiaga Uno’s political status, because Sandi was in the middle of a gubernatorial campaign together with Anies Baswedan. What the public know is that Andreas Tjahyadi was named a suspect but Andreas and Fransiska had reportedly reached an agreement entering April 2018. Fransiska still filed another police report against Sandiaga in June 2018 but we haven’t heard of anything since then.

In the last week of September 2018, Fransiska’s name appeared on the court’s registry. The Central Jakarta District Court registered Case No. 536/Pdt.G/2018/PN Jkt.Pst on September 27, 2018. What’s surprising in the lawsuit is that Fransiska accused dozens of people—most of them are linked to the family’s businesses—of committing tort. Listed as defendants are the Soeryadjaya siblings:

  1. Edward Seky Soeryadjaya, the oldest son (founder of Ortus Holding Ltd and PT Sugih Energy Tbk – SUGI) who’s now standing trial as defendant for his alleged involvement in the case of corruption related to embezzlement in PT Dana Pensiun Pertamina and also Fransiska’s former husband;
  2. Edwin Soeryadjaya, Edward’s brother and one of the ultimate majority shareholders of PT Saratoga Investama Sedaya Tbk (SRTG), where Sandiaga Uno is still listed as a shareholder;
  3. Joyce Soeryadjaya (Kerr), William Soeryadjaya’s third born, one of the ultimate majority shareholders of SRTG besides Edwin, managing director of Inter Astrea Ltd; and
  4. Judith Soeryadjaya, youngest daughter who controls Credo group.

In the lawsuit, Fransiska also listed dozens of other people as co-defendants, including Atilah Rapatriati (Soeryadjaya), a theater producer and director and Edward’s current wife.

The lawsuit does not mention details on the dispute other than Fransiska accusing Edward of signing the object of dispute without her permission. On the second week of October 2018, it was revealed that the object of dispute was the agreement of distribution of inheritance between the Soeryadjaya siblings reportedly signed without Fransiska’s consent when Fransiska was still Edward’s lawful wife.

The details were uncovered when Fransiska filed a police report against Edward on charges of allegation of embezzlement, origin of marriage and identity forgery. The report was registered as report No. LP/B/1256/X/2018/Bareskrim and Fransiska gave statement to the press on October 18, 2018.

Fransiska said that the object of the dispute were three agreements including the agreement on release of rights to inheritance involving Edward and his siblings. The inheritance in question are all assets and management rights over the companies built by William. Edward’s siblings reportedly wanted to restructure ownership and control of Edward’s assets and Edward could not do anything without their consent. Fransiska smelled something fishy.

In the agreement on the release of rights, it is stated that all parties must obtain approval from their husband or wife. But the name listed in the agreement was not Fransiska, who was Edward’s wife at the time, but another woman whose legal status was unclear. Fransiska is offended because she’s considered non-existent. So far Fransiska claimed to have tried to contact the Soeryadjaya family in various ways, but the family did not show good faith. So she had to register the lawsuit and police report.

When the first hearing on the lawsuit No. 536 was held last week, Fransiska’s legal counsel one Rinto Wardana said that Edward and Fransiska got married in the U.S. and registered their marriage in Indonesia. The couple began living separate lives in 1998 but they never agreed to divorce. Fransiska also never received any divorce document and therefore she’s still Edward’s lawful wife. If this is true, then what about Atilah Soeryadjaya?

By Pradnya Paramitha

Copying, redistributing, and retransmitting this article is a violation of copyrights.